Breaking the prediction into parts:

1. Both left and right would move toward treating large tech platforms as regulated common carriers.

   • Since 2021, the common carrier framing for social media and platforms has primarily come from conservatives. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that some digital platforms might be analogous to common carriers or public accommodations, encouraging regulation along those lines. (cnbc.com) Republican-led states like Florida and Texas then explicitly invoked common-carrier language in their 2021 social‑media laws (SB 7072 and HB 20). (wlf.org)
   • By contrast, Democrats’ major tech efforts under Lina Khan and in Congress have focused on antitrust and consumer protection (e.g., Amazon/merger suits, Open App Markets Act, American Innovation and Choice Online Act) rather than reclassifying platforms as common carriers. (en.wikipedia.org) Debates over Section 230 reform are bipartisan, but the goals diverge (Democrats typically pushing for more responsibility for harmful content, Republicans for less perceived "censorship"). (theverge.com)
   • There is no evidence of a bipartisan “deal” to treat app stores, cloud platforms, or dominant social networks as regulated common carriers; instead, the parties remain sharply split on whether forcing platforms to host more speech is desirable or constitutional.

2. Within a few years, concrete U.S. regulatory or legislative actions would impose common‑carrier‑like obligations on at least some big tech platforms.

   • State laws: Texas’s HB 20 and Florida’s SB 7072 tried to impose must‑carry / nondiscrimination rules on large social‑media platforms and explicitly leaned on the idea that these platforms can be treated “similarly to common carriers.” (en.wikipedia.org) Those are concrete legislative actions and do mirror classic common‑carrier nondiscrimination duties.
   • But courts have largely pushed back. The Eleventh Circuit stressed that Congress has expressly distinguished “interactive computer services” (social‑media platforms) from common carriers in the Telecommunications Act, and that federal law protects platforms’ right to discriminate among messages—strong evidence that they are not common carriers. (law.justia.com) In Moody v. NetChoice (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that laws like the Florida and Texas statutes, which limit platforms’ ability to curate and moderate content, implicate the platforms’ own First Amendment editorial discretion and vacated the lower-court decisions, sending the cases back for more searching First Amendment analysis rather than green‑lighting the common‑carrier theory. (supreme.justia.com) As of late 2025, these laws remain heavily constrained and unsettled, not functioning as stable, widely accepted common‑carrier regimes for social media.
   • Federal level: There is still no federal statute or durable federal regulation that reclassifies major online platforms (social networks, app stores, cloud platforms) themselves as common carriers or that squarely imposes telecom‑style carriage obligations on them. Key bipartisan competition bills such as the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act advanced in committee but did not become law; later reintroduced versions remain only proposals. (en.wikipedia.org) Child‑safety and age‑verification bills (e.g., KOSA, state youth‑online‑safety laws) regulate design and access for minors, not carriage‑style nondiscrimination for all users. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • Separate FCC efforts to re‑impose net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as Title II common carriers were short‑lived; the Sixth Circuit in 2025 ruled the FCC lacks authority for that reclassification, again undercutting a move toward broader common‑carrier treatment even in traditional telecom. (wired.com) Those efforts target carriers like broadband providers, not the app‑store and social‑media “platform monopolies” Sacks was talking about.

Bottom line: While some Republican‑led states enacted and defended laws that attempt to treat large platforms like common carriers, courts have not endorsed that model, and there is no bipartisan, system‑wide shift to regulating app stores, cloud platforms, or dominant social networks as common carriers. Federal law and Supreme Court doctrine currently point in the opposite direction, emphasizing platforms’ editorial rights and distinguishing them from common carriers. Given that more than four years have passed since June 2021 without the predicted bipartisan realignment or durable common‑carrier obligations for big tech platforms, this prediction is best judged as wrong.